The Politics Board Lives (in this thread)

Unnecessary. Increase border patrol, employ increased use of drones and other devices that would cost significantly less. I all for increased border security but we don't need a monument to Cadet Bone Spurs to accomplish that.

We don't need thousands upon thousands of soldiers to accomplish what the border patrol was created to do. The Russian threat is still there and growing. I would rather we protect them than against an imaginary threat to the south.

Well then our wealthy allies need to put some more skin in the game.

And we can obviate the neeed for thousands of troops on the southern border if we had a wall.

And eliminate the idiotic Democrat immigration policies where an illegal gets a court hearing a year later. Just depot then back.

And eliminate automatic citiZenship to non citizens and illegals who have no rights at all to be here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many of our allies are already increasing spending, despite Trump's claims to the contrary. I just think the military should be ready to fight wars, not chase people all over the desert. Some immigration policies should be changed but not in the way it's being carried out right now.

Wrong most are below the 2.00 percent obligation — period. I have supported NATO offices and know this subject well.

They are NOW talking about increasing it in response to Trump’s pressure . You are simply wrong on this.

I have no problem with what Trump admin is doing on the border. Keep families together - but in detention no catch and release. Build the wall and we won’t have to chase anyone out in the desert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong we need a wall - it turns a flood of illegals and criminals into a trickle and is a force
Multiples for BP on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if Europe is afraid of Russia - I wonder how they feel Germany b coming a client state of Putin now that they pay billions a year for gas and oil.

They should buy from the US - a fellow NATO member who is also the largest natural gas and oil producer in the world.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was a bone of contention for years with Germany but with the pipeline 20% of their oil will come from Russia (not the 70% Trump claimed). Plus Germany has seen what being a client state to Russia bring so I doubt highly they will allow themselves to let that happen again.

Two years into Trump's tenure and illegal immigration is supposedly the biggest threat to the nation. It was around this time in Dubya's presidency that he claimed Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest threat to the country. How is it so easy for Republican presidents to make such dubious claims and then have many conservatives agree that the only solution is one that costs billions or trillions of dollars?

Whats dubious - under Obama who opened the flood gates to illegals we had swarms charge the border - he incentives illegals to bring their kids along a 1500-2000 mile dangerous journey because of his catch and release program.

Over 1850 American have been killed in Obama's 8 years by the illegals he let in -- all blood on his and the DNC's hands.

Overwhelming majorities in multiple polls want illegal immigration stopped and even legal immigration reduced. With the cartel violence growing more dangerous and closer to our sovereign land - strong measure need to be taken.

There is a big difference between defending our own land and borders and going abroad.

But Democrats don't give a shit about the US - just their power. They are on the wrong side of this issue - period.

Nope - again your wrong the numbers were confirmed - 70 % of their energy will come from Russia - both natural gas and oil. You need to sharpen your grasp of facts. Now if Germany doesn't play ball with Putin - he can make them freeze during winter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...RIGHT-Germany-imports-70-cent-gas-Russia.html

Donald Trump is RIGHT: Germany imports 70 per cent of its gas from Russia in a controversial deal that has enriched its former Chancellor and it will soon receive even MORE - but the US could step in

• The EU statistics agency Eurostat says Russia supplies 70% of Germany's gas
• Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has profited from gas deals with Russia
• Trump argued Germany is still 'totally controlled by Russia' because of the gas
• US shale resources could provide Europe's supplies with Liquefied Natural Gas

Natural gas, not oil. The article is pretty clear on that so it's not 70 of total energy, just natural gas

80% of Germany’s energy demand is satisfied through natural gas. If you read the article it also says the deal included oil and a planned Increase in total energy purchase from Russia.

Meaning Germany is under the thumb of Russia and is not a reliable NATO ally if they also shirk their defense spending.

Read a post I made
Earlier — German soldiers are training with broomsticks instead of weapons.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evidence that even in New York Democrats have to hide their true policy positions.


Congressional candidate Tedra Cobb (D-NY-21) says she supports banning "assault rifles" but cannot publicly admit it because gun control support would cost her the election.


View: https://youtu.be/GALyezAPwZk



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It has been the biggest threat for some time. Dems are importing voters who have no appreciation for limited government and liberal values. Check the polling on that.

Ann Coulter has an interesting article
On why the liberals are freak me out about the Supreme Court and claim any non-liberal justice will take away “rights”.

Basically liberals figured out that policies they could never get passed through the electorate and legislatures could be falsely classified as “rights “ as a means of legislative cheating if they had activist justices. I know most of the liberals hate her but she has well reasoned legal writings.

It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter.

On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.”

Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling?

Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!


Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!)

After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot.

Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices.

A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.

And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So as the classless violent and basically in-American left has sought to trash Justice Kavanaugh personnally saying he has a “frat name” and belittling him because he is a “white man” —- an interesting news story breaks on how someone photographed Kavanaugh making meals
For the homeless in DC outside the Catholic Charities building in DC.

Doing something you would never see Pelosi or Chucky Schumer doing — getting their hands dirty actually helping the poor people they like to us as political props.

So democrats keeping being the lowlifes that you are — the picture you present of yourselves before the midterms is awesome.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/11/kavanaugh-feeds-homeless/





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everything I read on Kavanaugh is that he is a good man. That's not the issue here. Character matters but so does judicial history and that is what I have issue with. It serves no purpose to attack the man.

Papa John's founder John Schnatter resigns after uttering the n word during a conference call with advertisers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-for-using-the-n-word/?utm_term=.4ae9647c218f

I am too lazy to research his judicial history. What are you specifically referring to?

For the record, I have no opionion on Kavanaugh. I assume there is at best a 50% chance a Republican president got it right.